Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Maheshwari Prasad Inter College And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 5511 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2551 (15 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5511 of 2007

Maheshwari Prasad Inter College, Alam Chand, Kaushambi & another


State of Uttar Pradesh and others

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran.

Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-Board whereby the petitioner-institution has been debarred from being an examination centre for three years.

The admitted facts are that the petitioner-institution is a duly recognized Intermediate college. It has been a centre for conducting the Board's examination since 1994 without any break and never before passing of the impugned order, has there been any complaint or any irregularity found against the petitioner-institution. Such categorical averments have been made in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition, to which no specific reply has been given except for that the college has been black-listed on the basis of complaint made on 6.3.2006 by the Assistant Director, Basic Education . The specific case of the petitioners is that they had received a show cause notice dated 8.5.2006 on 25.8.2006 and had submitted a reply to the same immediately within three days of the receipt of the same i.e. on 28.8.2006. Said averments have been made in Paragraphs no. 8 and 9 of the writ petition, to which also there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit except for that it has been stated that by order dated 12.7.2006 the petitioner-institution had been black-listed. Once it is not denied by the respondents that show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 25.8.2006, to which a reply had been given by them on 28.8.2006, then it is not understood how the impugned order dated 12.7.2006 could have been passed without the petitioners having been provided any opportunity of showing cause. Howsoever serious the  charges may be against any person, no action can be taken without complying with the principles of natural justice and giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned party.

In the aforesaid facts, the order dated 12.7.2006, whereby the decision to black-list the petitioner-institution had been taken, is thus, an exparte order. It is well settled principle of law that in case if a right has accrued in favour of a party, he cannot be deprived of the same without following the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of such principles and is thus liable to be quashed on this ground alone.

Further, in Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that on the basis of the complaint made by the Assistant Director of Education on 6.3.2006, the examinations of the said date of all the students of the petitioner-institution were again held at another centre, namely, K.P.Inter College, Allahabad and in the said re-examinations more than 62% of the students had passed, meaning thereby that the allegation of mass copying made in the complaint dated 6.3.2006 cannot be fully justified as the second examination was held separately without there being any allegation of use of unfair means. In the counter affidavit, the said allegation made in Paragraph 11 of the writ petition have not been specifically denied and it has merely been stated that the examination committee has taken a decision for disqualifying the petitioner-institution from being an examination centre for three years. As such it appears that the order dated 12.7.2006 has been passed mechanically without  application of mind and in a routine manner whereby the name of the petitioner-institution has been included in the list of 206 institutions which have been black-listed without assigning any reason for having done so in the case of the petitioner, nor have the respondents been able  to justify the same in the counter affidavit.

For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 12.7.2006, in so far as it relates to the petitioner-institution, is quashed and it is provided that the respondent-Board shall pass appropriates permitting the petitioner-institution to be a centre for holding examinations of High School and Intermediate.

However, it is provided that in case if the respondent-Board still, on the basis of the record available, finds it necessary to take action against the petitioner-institution, it shall do so after following the principles of natural justice and giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and then alone pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law.

This writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.

dt.  15.2.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.